Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Choosing gear options in power level play is a tactical choices, not a mathematical one.

Choosing options in a points - based system is no less tactical. And both are mathematical... They just rely on different maths.

Sure, you can just field your character in a power level game with whatever options you happened to model on him. You can do the same in a points based game (I've been doing so in some of my armies since forever)... And in both cases it will potentially be an inefficient thing to do. The only difference is that in the latter it's using points that you could have used elsewhere, while in the former you're missing out on the full potential of the unit by not making him as powerful as possible.

In a points -based game, there will still be a reason to use bolt pistols on marine characters. In a power level game, there is never going to be any logical reason to not upgrade it to a better weapon, regardless of whether or not you intend to use it.

tneva82 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Odd how a "competitive" player is more willing to accommodate others than the more casual narrative player don't you think.

Funny. I see competive players wanting to get rid of power levels more than casuals are wanting point levels to be removed. So seems it's actually other way around. Competive players want to drill their way of play for others.

Nope you've completely and utterly misunderstood the whole point of this thread we arnt forcing points on you we are trying to dispell the myth pl is a better system and you should use it over other options.

We want the best balance possible so everyone has fun and we don't have aos style steamroller games.

Its the narrative guys saying you must be painted, you must be WYSIWYG, you must not take every option or we'll banish you to only play with WAAC competitive guys.

People can play any mode they want but they shouldn't be pushing pl as if its better because it flat out isn't, good enough isn't good enough.

Both are optional, there's no reason to argue about any of it.

Want to use Power Rating? Do so. Want to use points? Do so /thread.

On a side note I've worked 5-6 armies now and 1 Power Rating is very close to 20% points, with like a 5-10% swing in different armies.

hobojebus wrote:
People can play any mode they want but they shouldn't be pushing pl as if its better because it flat out isn't, good enough isn't good enough.

It is for some. But that's what competive players don't get. They think because they want to have as granular illusion of balance everybody wants it. But newsflash: They don't. Lots of people prefer power levels. There's no downside in having them. Except that competive players can't grasp the idea that somebody doesn't prefer their holy grail of points which still doesn't give you balance.

To all new points-in-every-game-are-better advocates in this thread, I'm still waiting for an answer to my initial question:

How exactly Meatgrinder scenario benefits from using points? Please be specific and read this scenario before you answer, because "exact ballance is always better" is simply not applicable in case of a game with assumed disparity and "endless wave" construction. And before someone answers with "so just bunch up some models and play without regards to any calculations" - in this case measuring total point/power level values of armies combined with model count give you exactly two pre-game informations: how big table do you need and how long this game may last. In 40K model count alone isn't usefaull at all, so I have to have at least rough estimate of army strenght. Power Levels are good enough at this task (and to stress a bit more clearly one aspect of Power Levels that many "points always" advocates are clearly unaware of - for narrative scenarios you don't have exact upper Power Level limits you have to fit in, it can be 48 vs 52 and the scenario takes care of that. It can even be like 71 vs 98 if you want different experience or accomodate for different players skill levels to give them similliarily challenging game). Terrain setup, first turn order and variable lenght rolls have more impact in this scenario than exact point ballance. This is clearly not a relative skill measuring scenario (although it still is/can be skill dependant experience and/or skill training excercise).

This question hangs unanswered for 10 pages of this thread now... So, anyone?

And to be crystal clear for those of you who get jumpy about "corrupting meta with Power Levels": I'm not, in any way whatsoever implying, at any point in any of my posts in this thread, that Power Levels are better (or equal) than points for typical Matched Play/Tournament purposes...

tneva82 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
People can play any mode they want but they shouldn't be pushing pl as if its better because it flat out isn't, good enough isn't good enough.

It is for some. But that's what competive players don't get. They think because they want to have as granular illusion of balance everybody wants it. But newsflash: They don't. Lots of people prefer power levels. There's no downside in having them. Except that competive players can't grasp the idea that somebody doesn't prefer their holy grail of points which still doesn't give you balance.

Asking for points is not to be competitive, it's to have a baseline for balancing... and power level are still points, they should help balancing, not saying a fully equipped character = naked character. At least, every equipment should cost PL (even if every thing cost 1PL, that still better than nothing).

I don't see myself as a competitive player, and I love narrative scenarios, but I hate when these scenarios are unfair. I will use "fair" and not "balanced", because I don't care if I have half the troops of my opponent, as long as I have a corresponding objective : trying to hold an army that is bigger than mine for 6 rounds can be a fair objective. If the attacker/defender always win, time to adjust the point difference, or the number of turns.

Taking a random army vs another random army is not narrative to me, it' being casual at at cost, and it's shifting the blame to the players(What?!? you took 2 fully equipped characters?!? that not how it is meant to played!)

Dark Phoenix wrote:

I don't see myself as a competitive player, and I love narrative scenarios, but I hate when these scenarios are unfair. I will use "fair" and not "balanced", because I don't care if I have half the troops of my opponent, as long as I have a corresponding objective : trying to hold an army that is bigger than mine for 6 rounds can be a fair objective. If the attacker/defender always win, time to adjust the point difference, or the number of turns.

You can also adjust terrain setup, make a secondary objective, change deployment zones layout etc... Points are not "end all" way of ballancing such scenarios, they are quite bad at it really (speaking from experience standpoint of more than 50 such games during 7th ed). The fastest way to check if ballancing of such special scenarios is good enough is to play them more than once switching roles and paying close attention to crucial "turning points" rolls for post-game analysis. If such scenario always ends with an atacking side winning, then it is not armies construction method that is flawed. Designing such scenarios "armyproof enough" is a skill to master in it's own way.

nou wrote:
How exactly Meatgrinder scenario benefits from using points?

You answered your own question by advocating the use of power levels, which are just a point system. The only difference between the two point systems is that one is less accurate than the other, and gains nothing in return for that reduced accuracy.

(and to stress a bit more clearly one aspect of Power Levels that many "points always" advocates are clearly unaware of - for narrative scenarios you don't have exact upper Power Level limits you have to fit in, it can be 48 vs 52 and the scenario takes care of that. It can even be like 71 vs 98 if you want different experience or accomodate for different players skill levels to give them similliarily challenging game)

This can be done just as easily with the more accurate point system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
There's no downside in having them.

Of course there's a downside. The less-accurate point system is wasted development time, time that could have been spent improving the rules elsewhere. There is no reason for it to exist, no advantage it offers, and GW should not waste a minute of development time on it.

And, aside from the wasted time factor, claiming that the less-accurate point system doesn't cost anything is hardly a compelling defense of it. It's still trash and terrible game design even if it doesn't add any cost to the final product. There are a great many things GW could add to the rules with the same minimal downside, and accomplish nothing by doing so except increasing the page count of the rules. And none of them belong in a well-written game.

When you don't have a model equiped with a storm shields, and near as I can tell you will always be replacing something to get any sort of upgrade, even if the original point cost was free.

You see n objectively worse unit, I see a unit built to not draw attention to itself in order to increase survivability. Build your unit how you like, never need to worry if the model is the most efficient it can be. Base your equipment on your strategy and not the mathematics of damage output and survivability. These are the basis of the power level system.

As I've said before, nobody has ever run bare bones you it's for a reason other than to be able to spend points elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Choosing gear options in power level play is a tactical choices, not a mathematical one.

Choosing options in a points - based system is no less tactical. And both are mathematical... They just rely on different maths.

Sure, you can just field your character in a power level game with whatever options you happened to model on him. You can do the same in a points based game (I've been doing so in some of my armies since forever)... And in both cases it will potentially be an inefficient thing to do. The only difference is that in the latter it's using points that you could have used elsewhere, while in the former you're missing out on the full potential of the unit by not making him as powerful as possible.

In a points -based game, there will still be a reason to use bolt pistols on marine characters. In a power level game, there is never going to be any logical reason to not upgrade it to a better weapon, regardless of whether or not you intend to use it.

The reason is because you WANT he to have a bolt gun. Why would you simply decide to max out upgrades? This is where I get lost. If I want a battle leader that is just moving forward granting buffs, I want him inconspicuous. Since he will be out of range for most things due to me wanting units in the way, why bother upgrading his weapon? If he has a better gun, it is because I WANT him to use it. If he has it and doesn't use it, it meant nothing. So why give him something I don't plan on him using, and why would I limit my upgrades for other units to do so?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You see n objectively worse unit, I see a unit built to not draw attention to itself in order to increase survivability.

That's a ridiculous argument. It is never a good idea to deliberately build a weak unit and hope that you are playing against a stupid opponent who can't properly evaluate its strength. You don't need gimmick units to beat someone that hopeless, and against a decent player you've just sabotaged yourself before the game even begins.

Build your unit how you like, never need to worry if the model is the most efficient it can be. Base your equipment on your strategy and not the mathematics of damage output and survivability. These are the basis of the power level system.

No, they're the basis of the imaginary power level system that exists only in the minds of "casual at all costs" players for whom the use of power levels is most valuable as a sign of how "casual" they are. For everyone else it's obvious that power levels are just another point system, with the same efficiency concerns as any other point system. Units cost a certain amount of points, and you improve your list by getting the greatest possible power relative to their point cost. And you figure that out by using the same math as the conventional point system. There will still be good units and overpriced units, and you will still take the good ones if you want to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The reason is because you WANT he to have a bolt gun.

Why would you want to have a weapon that is weaker than the alternative that costs the same amount of points?

If I want a battle leader that is just moving forward granting buffs, I want him inconspicuous.

See above. This only works against stupid opponents, and you should never optimize your list for beating stupid people at the expense of worse performance against good players.

Since he will be out of range for most things due to me wanting units in the way, why bother upgrading his weapon?

This tradeoff only exists in the more accurate point system, where those upgrades cost additional points. In the power level point system you upgrade his weapon because it costs zero points to do so, and adds a non-zero amount of value. Even if it's unlikely that you will use either weapon it's possible that you might, and if it doesn't cost anything you might as well take the upgrade. Doing anything else is making a unit that costs the same as the more powerful alternative, but has worse performance, even if it's only by a small margin. And why would you deliberately sabotage your own list while gaining nothing in return?

One of the things I've always wanted to see but it will never happen is a big competitive event where the armies are provided and basically mirrors of each other.

That way we could really evaluate table skill in a truly even environment list-wise.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
How exactly Meatgrinder scenario benefits from using points?

You answered your own question by advocating the use of power levels, which are just a point system. The only difference between the two point systems is that one is less accurate than the other, and gains nothing in return for that reduced accuracy.

(and to stress a bit more clearly one aspect of Power Levels that many "points always" advocates are clearly unaware of - for narrative scenarios you don't have exact upper Power Level limits you have to fit in, it can be 48 vs 52 and the scenario takes care of that. It can even be like 71 vs 98 if you want different experience or accomodate for different players skill levels to give them similliarily challenging game)

This can be done just as easily with the more accurate point system.

Let me rephrase my question specifically for you - "How exactly (and you especially should be VERY specific about it), Meatgrinder scenario benefits from using THE GW POINTS instead of GW POWER LEVELS. Exactly what benefits are there in calculating 2000 pts force to 1pts increment accuracy, in exact context of THE GW POINTS being inaccurate and THIS VERY SCENARIO with all it's perks and flaws."

Your basic assumption, that the only quality of a point system is it's granularity, and the way you desperately stick to it is, well, how to put it to not violate rule #1... cute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
One of the things I've always wanted to see but it will never happen is a big competitive event where the armies are provided and basically mirrors of each other.

That way we could really evaluate table skill in a truly even environment list-wise.

That is something I brought up in discussion a long time ago in another ballance related thread. Funnily enough, there were only a couple of folks who would wilingly participate in such theoretical event.

Yeah I've tried doing it for 20 odd years and you get no response. Largely because it would show how good people really are when they can't rely on a min/max list to carry them.

nou wrote:
To all new points-in-every-game-are-better advocates in this thread, I'm still waiting for an answer to my initial question:

How exactly Meatgrinder scenario benefits from using points? Please be specific and read this scenario before you answer, because "exact ballance is always better" is simply not applicable in case of a game with assumed disparity and "endless wave" construction. And before someone answers with "so just bunch up some models and play without regards to any calculations" - in this case measuring total point/power level values of armies combined with model count give you exactly two pre-game informations: how big table do you need and how long this game may last. In 40K model count alone isn't usefaull at all, so I have to have at least rough estimate of army strenght. Power Levels are good enough at this task (and to stress a bit more clearly one aspect of Power Levels that many "points always" advocates are clearly unaware of - for narrative scenarios you don't have exact upper Power Level limits you have to fit in, it can be 48 vs 52 and the scenario takes care of that. It can even be like 71 vs 98 if you want different experience or accomodate for different players skill levels to give them similliarily challenging game). Terrain setup, first turn order and variable lenght rolls have more impact in this scenario than exact point ballance. This is clearly not a relative skill measuring scenario (although it still is/can be skill dependant experience and/or skill training excercise).

This question hangs unanswered for 10 pages of this thread now... So, anyone?

I'm certainly not a PIEGAB advocate (mmmm... pie...) but I took a look and the best I can think of is that using Points instead of Power Levels means I could take a larger number of cheaper units, to make my Sustained Assault a little more reliable. However, the scenario is inherently so imbalanced that I really don't see much advantage to either system. Frankly, I think you could play the scenario just as well by just going with what looks good on the table or what tells a better story, without using either system. If you were to modify the scenario a bit, I could see doing something like saying the defender gets 2000 points and the attacker gets 1500 (regenerating) Points could possibly make for a better balanced game, but you could do that with Power Levels too.

I think that Meatgrinder is a bad scenario for the question, since it's such an inherently unbalanced scenario. You probably need to stick to Eternal War missions to really see any advantage, simply because balance in Crucible of War missions is more complex due to the asymmetric objectives.

 Lansirill wrote:

nou wrote:
To all new points-in-every-game-are-better advocates in this thread, I'm still waiting for an answer to my initial question:

How exactly Meatgrinder scenario benefits from using points? Please be specific and read this scenario before you answer, because "exact ballance is always better" is simply not applicable in case of a game with assumed disparity and "endless wave" construction. And before someone answers with "so just bunch up some models and play without regards to any calculations" - in this case measuring total point/power level values of armies combined with model count give you exactly two pre-game informations: how big table do you need and how long this game may last. In 40K model count alone isn't usefaull at all, so I have to have at least rough estimate of army strenght. Power Levels are good enough at this task (and to stress a bit more clearly one aspect of Power Levels that many "points always" advocates are clearly unaware of - for narrative scenarios you don't have exact upper Power Level limits you have to fit in, it can be 48 vs 52 and the scenario takes care of that. It can even be like 71 vs 98 if you want different experience or accomodate for different players skill levels to give them similliarily challenging game). Terrain setup, first turn order and variable lenght rolls have more impact in this scenario than exact point ballance. This is clearly not a relative skill measuring scenario (although it still is/can be skill dependant experience and/or skill training excercise).

This question hangs unanswered for 10 pages of this thread now... So, anyone?

I'm certainly not a PIEGAB advocate (mmmm... pie...) but I took a look and the best I can think of is that using Points instead of Power Levels means I could take a larger number of cheaper units, to make my Sustained Assault a little more reliable. However, the scenario is inherently so imbalanced that I really don't see much advantage to either system. Frankly, I think you could play the scenario just as well by just going with what looks good on the table or what tells a better story, without using either system. If you were to modify the scenario a bit, I could see doing something like saying the defender gets 2000 points and the attacker gets 1500 (regenerating) Points could possibly make for a better balanced game, but you could do that with Power Levels too.

I think that Meatgrinder is a bad scenario for the question, since it's such an inherently unbalanced scenario. You probably need to stick to Eternal War missions to really see any advantage, simply because balance in Crucible of War missions is more complex due to the asymmetric objectives.

But this inherent imballance is EXACTLY my point - in such asymmetrical scenarios, "other than ballance inducing" qualities of various point systems comes to play. Power Levels have the overall "good enough measure" quality. Contradictory to what Peregrine insists on, point systems have various desired qualities, just to name a few that come to mind: granularity, ballance accuracy, ease of use, learning curve, encouragement/intimidation, time efficiency, intuitivness, "honesty" (disparity between what you get vs what you are being told they are good at delivering), abusability etc... Many of such qualities are contradictory, so will be better or worse in different applications. Yours "just what is looking good on the table" is one of the possible systems, that may suit a particular style of expected experience. Power Levels are another, THE points are another, model count is another... I shown two necesarry informations that Power Levels provide in Meatgrinder scenario for players inexperienced enough to just "eye measure" - required table size and game lenght. Both those informations can clearly be derived from THE point system, but at the expense of necessary learning curve, time efficiency and encouragement/intimidation effect on new players.

Crucible of War missions are fine examples of missions that are hard to achieve perfect ballance even for very veteran players using even the most accurate point system available, are impossible to ballance using any point system whatsoever for beginner players, but still benefit from having any numerical point system better than a model count as a guide. And are/can be a lot of fun when played, even for strongly skill-focused players, so they are not "wasted development time"...

Points are more of a precision instrument than Power levels however has anyone ever tried to do rough work with precision instruments? You're gna waste an awfull lot of time and effort for no benefit.

The granularity of points is a "precison" instrument that assumes a ton of stuff ( one psy power, max half reserve, almost equal objectives, etc). When those assumptions are wrong it is useless/ less precise.

@Peregrine: I'm flipping your question on its head: Do points always achieve a better game in the end?

In my opinion power levels is somewhat of a flawed idea because they actually work counter intuitive to the way many of the players in the section are arguing for them. When people argue for power level use it seems like it is because (I obviously wont get ever reason people like them but this is generally what I’ve seen argued)

1. Quicker list making time
2. Easier for new players to grasp
3. Better for non WWAC players

In my opinion only the first argument holds true. Yes it is quicker to make a list with this point cost in mind but I don’t think it saves much time. The addition and subtract for a casual game saved by building a list this way is very small and couldn’t save more then a few minutes and once you have the point values down probably wouldn’t save any noticeable amount of time.

Once you get past reason (1) none of the other explanations of why to use power levels really hold true. I find the second argument to be a huge fallacy and actually work exactly the opposite. Power levels are actually harder for a new player to grasp competitively then an experienced player. For example if x upgrade and y upgrade are available to a unit and the power level remains the same then its easy for a new player to say “if x and y upgrade are the same cost they must be about equal in efficiency” it’s a logical conclusion that a new player could draw from a power level system that costs all upgrades the same. Experienced players actually have an advantage over new players using power levels for this exact reason. Young players especially suffer. One of the reason my brothers and I were draw to warhammer as kids were point values. It was easy enough to say that if we both used 500 point and stayed within the rules we would be playing a somewhat even game. The small amount of time saved in the list building phase doesn’t make up for the knowledge of statistics required while using power levels (adding together 215+ 300+ 175…ect wasn’t hard as a kid but doing the math to understand that x upgrade will cause a wound 17% of the time and upgrade y will cause one 26% of the time was not realistic. So in essence I think that power level add little to no real advantage to new players and actually add relatively large hurtles.

The same basic principles that applied to explanation (2) also apply to three. WWAC players actually have an advantage over casual and new players when it comes to power levels. WWAC players will build the most efficient group with upgrades that they can to get every ounce of power out of each unit. New players wont have the collection size to do this and are also hurt by modeling with the “rule of cool” which most young and new players use when first starting. While WWAC players will always have an advantage in tabletop games (perfect balance is impossible to achieve and there is always room to squeeze in more efficiency) The larger the room for this efficiency to exist the larger the room is for WAAC players to exploit new and casual players. While points might not be perfect they get much closer to achieving the cost for each specific unit and thus reduce the amount of exploitation possible by WWAC players.

 Melissia wrote:
There's absolutely nothing stopping someone from being both WAAC and strictly enforcing WYSIWYG.

WYSIWYG will not stop WAAC and TFG is a mostly true statement. What will stop him with WYSIWYG is the fact that he will have to pack 3x as much stuff with him to achieve WYSIWYG in every game or he has to go with Magnets. Most WAAC a TFG will not spend the time to do that to his army or pay that much for it in ebay.

tneva82 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Odd how a "competitive" player is more willing to accommodate others than the more casual narrative player don't you think.

Funny. I see competive players wanting to get rid of power levels more than casuals are wanting point levels to be removed. So seems it's actually other way around. Competive players want to drill their way of play for others.

Wow First Multi Post in years…
This is very true. Though I have found most ‘Competitive’ will still play whatever game is a foot, even if they are playing casual players. At times I encourage it at is can make the ‘Casual’ player better in the long run if the ‘Competitive’ player is more than willing to be a teacher rather then TFG. The problem is the ‘Ultra-Competitive’ player who does not have an on/off switch and can not play just to play.
You know what will stop ‘Ultra-Competitive-WAAC-TFG’ player. Don’t play their game. I have had numerous ‘Competitive’ Players quit playing us because we won’t take the game ‘Serous Enough’.
We have had 2,000 point games (Our Default size) take 5 hours from everything from old war stories and chatting about movies and TV. Anyone who want to play with us we do warn them about it so they know that the game is just the center of out ‘Socializing Event’.

Power levels to start, points once everyone is comfortable.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

The reason is because you WANT he to have a bolt gun.

Then you're better off with the points-based system, where doing so isn't a handicap.

Why would you simply decide to max out upgrades?

If an upgrade is free, and is as good or better in every way than what you start with (as is the case with every other pistol that a Marine Captain has access to as a potential replacement for his bolt pistol) then there is no logical reason to not take it.

To be clear, I'm not talking about simply taking every single available upgrade. There are certainly going to be some upgrades that are better than others for specific army builds. But where something is clearly better than the thing that it replaces, it would be silly to not take it.

If I want a battle leader that is just moving forward granting buffs, I want him inconspicuous.

Unless you're playing against someone who doesn't know what any of your models are, in the dark, that's not actually a thing. The moment your character starts handing out buffs, he becomes a target. Choosing to not give him better gear than what he starts with doesn't change that.

So why give him something I don't plan on him using, ...

Because you might wind up using it, and there is no reason to not have it.

...and why would I limit my upgrades for other units to do so?

Why would you be limiting upgrades for other units?

In a points based system any upgrade you out on will deny an upgrades elsewhere. With powerlevel you are limiting units but can use any upgrades you want.

I am going g to leave this discussion with this. In the past couple years I haven't given a damn about how many points my opponent has. I've never gone over their math, I've never cared if they had more points than me. If they appear to have a serious advantage in numbers or capability, I simply treat my game as a last stand or tried to do as much damage as possible before being taken out.

I don't need to know what your point total is to win, and I certainly don't need it in order to have a good time. Power levels are a quicker and easier way to get to playing.

Anyone who claims the time spent writing a list is negligible is being absurd. Adding 10+12+8+10+10+24+13+13 is significantly faster than (13x5)+(120+35+15)+40+(145+15+15+10) because the former was the entire army at 100 powerlevel while the latter is only 1/4 of the units out of a 2000 point army (meaning the armies would be about equal)

So what if my opponent has a 100 point advantage? If those 100 points are spent on something my army or the terrain invalidates as an efficient option then they don't mean anything and your entire point system has failed in it's entirety. Your notion of balance falls apart the minute terrain is set up on the table and I pull out my army list. So why should I care about the more granular approach to the lists themselves?

I built my list based on a generalised notion of capability, what my overall strategy is, and what I think looks cool. Nowhere in that concept does points efficiency or load out comparison matter.

To put it nother way, I am playing Fate while you play Gurps. Both are universal and can be fun, but my game doesn't need what yours does to function.

 insaniak wrote:
If an upgrade is free, and is as good or better in every way than what you start with (as is the case with every other pistol that a Marine Captain has access to as a potential replacement for his bolt pistol) then there is no logical reason to not take it.

To be clear, I'm not talking about simply taking every single available upgrade. There are certainly going to be some upgrades that are better than others for specific army builds. But where something is clearly better than the thing that it replaces, it would be silly to not take it.

Unless your Space Marine Captain model does not have modeled on it a particular upgrade, and you are wanting to play WYSIWYG.

Or you are playing for fluff and narrative reasons, and your Space Marine Captain has a preference for Bolt Pistols over Plasma Pistols, or the Chapter has a shortage of Plasma weapons available for whatever reason, or whatever Narrative reason you could think of for why a model would rather take the lesser upgrade.

Or you realize that you put sponsons on your tank, and you want to limit the capabilities that the Captain has, so you leave him with standard equipment to level off your army a bit.

To some of us players, we aren't trying to play to win; we are just trying to have fun and enjoy our game. Victory within the context of the game might be the objective of the models on the table, but not necessarily of all the players in control of them.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Or you realize that you put sponsons on your tank, and you want to limit the capabilities that the Captain has, so you leave him with standard equipment to level off your army a bit.

...If only you'd paid some sort of points cost for those sponsons, you'd have had fewer points left to spend on the Captain...

Being able to impose additional restrictions upon yourself in order to counteract inherent imbalance within the system is hardly a plus point for the system itself!

Since there is still some confusion:

Wanting to see fully painted and properly assembled miniatures on the table, because you want a cinematic gaming experience is not WAAC. This has nothing to do with points or power.

Wanting to restrict your opponent's options to get a better advantage, insisting on WYSIWYG because it makes your list stronger relative to theirs, is WAAC. This also has nothing to do with points or power.

If it's a competitive game I want my opponent to have their best list. So, proxying is okay with me, as long as it is done before hand, and not in response to seeing what i brought. Because that's list tailoring, and it makes for a pretty silly experience. I've played ITC games with people who used coke cans for drop pods.

If it's a non-competitive game, and we're playing power, and Johnny Q. Powergamer says, "Oh, it's power, therefore, all my units have all the upgrades," well, that dog won't hunt, because you're trying to game the system and "win at list building," rather than have a good game. Or, if it's a story based game, and someone doesn't have a drop pod, and wants to use the coke can, the answer is no, because it cheapens the experience.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If an upgrade is free, and is as good or better in every way than what you start with (as is the case with every other pistol that a Marine Captain has access to as a potential replacement for his bolt pistol) then there is no logical reason to not take it.

To be clear, I'm not talking about simply taking every single available upgrade. There are certainly going to be some upgrades that are better than others for specific army builds. But where something is clearly better than the thing that it replaces, it would be silly to not take it.

Unless your Space Marine Captain model does not have modeled on it a particular upgrade, and you are wanting to play WYSIWYG.

Or you are playing for fluff and narrative reasons, and your Space Marine Captain has a preference for Bolt Pistols over Plasma Pistols, or the Chapter has a shortage of Plasma weapons available for whatever reason, or whatever Narrative reason you could think of for why a model would rather take the lesser upgrade.

Or you realize that you put sponsons on your tank, and you want to limit the capabilities that the Captain has, so you leave him with standard equipment to level off your army a bit.

All of these examples are handled better by a system that accounts for options through points costs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
In a points based system any upgrade you out on will deny an upgrades elsewhere. With powerlevel you are limiting units but can use any upgrades you want..

Yes, that's been the whole point all along. I think you've gotten your argument confused somewhere along the line, as the point you were responding to there was that without paying for upgrades there is nothing to balance out the effective differences that result for your gear choices.

Earth127 wrote:
Points are more of a precision instrument than Power levels however has anyone ever tried to do rough work with precision instruments? You're gna waste an awfull lot of time and effort for no benefit.

Biiiiiinngo.

Thinking of it like cooking vs. baking. When you're baking, you need to be quite precise with your measurements and timing in order to get a good result. But when you're making spaghetti sauce, all you need is general proportions of ingredients and methods, and you can improvise or add your own spin on it and still come up with something delicious. You could measure everything out by the recipe and still get bolognese, but there's no pressing reason to, and you're more likely to enjoy the process and come up with something special if you don't.

Now if all you want to eat is bread, be my guest. Just don't come into my house and call me special ed because I don't follow your recipes.

So, we're arguing whether the end result we want is a delicious dessert or an inconsistent spaghetti sauce?

dosiere wrote:
So, we're arguing whether the end result we want is a delicious dessert or an inconsistent spaghetti sauce?

Yes, as some of us like both, just one goes better on pasta.

Heh, I see people using both at the same time.

You will see people setting up an agreement on a point level (even for the non-competitive games) and using Power Level to make a determinations on the mission setup.

dosiere wrote:
So, we're arguing whether the end result we want is a delicious dessert or an inconsistent spaghetti sauce?

"Precision is not required when coarse estimates produce effective results."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

dosiere wrote:
So, we're arguing whether the end result we want is a delicious dessert or an inconsistent spaghetti sauce?

Yes, as some of us like both, just one goes better on pasta.

Heh. Exalted.